By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Overnight drone attacks, attributed to Iranian-allied Iraqi militias, targeted several military bases, including Ain al-Asad, causing significant damage to radar systems. These attacks, likely a response to potential US involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, targeted bases under Iraqi military control, though US personnel are stationed at Ain al-Asad. Despite the damage, no US or Iraqi personnel were injured. With a fragile ceasefire emerging, there’s growing fear that such actions could destabilize the peace process in Iraq, especially given prior warnings from militia contacts.
Read the original article here
Israeli jets carry out small strike after Trump-Netanyahu call, and it’s immediately apparent that things aren’t as simple as they might seem. Following a phone call between Trump and Netanyahu, which was likely intended to project an image of control and peacemaking, a “small strike” occurred. The scale of the operation, at least according to the initial reports, seems designed to be a minor disturbance. It’s a curious move, and the implications are immediately up for grabs.
This action, however small, comes across as a direct contradiction of the ceasefire declarations, and raises significant questions about the intentions of all parties involved. Considering the immediate aftermath of a “massive strike,” as some describe the events, it’s clear that the situation is incredibly fragile. The idea that a “small strike” would follow a significant show of force, especially right after a high-profile call for peace, feels almost like an act of defiance.
The timing, of course, is the key element here. The call occurred, the announcement of an end to the conflict happened, and then came this subsequent bombing raid. It makes the “ceasefire” appear shallow, and casts doubt on the ability of any agreement to hold. The question naturally arises: Did Trump’s call really have any impact at all, or was this just a performance? Did anyone actually expect a lasting peace at this point?
Then there’s the talk of “nicest missiles” and how the attack “really shouldn’t count,” which adds a layer of absurdity to the situation. It feels like a schoolyard taunt, designed to downplay the severity of the action while still asserting dominance. It also makes you question whether this is just the tip of the iceberg, with more to come. It’s hard to take the situation at face value when it’s clearly loaded with undertones of mistrust.
And the potential for a “12-day war” to continue to expand is also mentioned here. The use of Trump’s marketing slogan to define the conflict now appears to be a major miscalculation. The concept of this war continuing past its anticipated timeline serves as an additional layer of irony. It’s an embarrassment, and the fact that this is considered “normal” highlights the instability of the situation.
There’s also a deep cynicism that permeates the discussion. References to Trump “lying” and the lack of respect for any figure or agreement reflect a growing sense of frustration and despair. This cynicism extends to the prospects of peace and any lasting resolution to the conflict. It would appear that no one is truly interested in peace, only in making the next hit in. The idea that this could be attributed to the actions of a maniac like Trump just reinforces that negativity.
Moreover, the idea of Netanyahu’s agenda comes into view. The belief that Netanyahu has been attempting to draw America into war with Iran for decades, as it would appear to be the case from the content, adds a layer of complexity. In this context, any ceasefire is not wanted, as it may interfere with the longer term goals. The fact that this “small strike” happened and the impact Trump’s call had on it all suggests the situation could spiral out of control.
Furthermore, the “small strike” is followed by discussion of “friendly bombs” and “residual loads”. These are clear metaphors for the ongoing aggression. When considered alongside the phrase, “they gotta use them once they take them out of the wrapping,” it speaks of a war-like mentality. It also suggests that the military actions are essentially pre-ordained, or a foregone conclusion regardless of any agreements.
The reaction to the “small strike” reflects a deep sense of weariness and a recognition that this cycle of violence is likely to continue. The focus on the “small strike” is about the act of continuation. There are mentions of how the ceasefire was never going to hold, and the focus is not on peace, but on dominance.
The overall impression is one of disillusionment and a recognition that peace, if it was ever on the table, is no longer in the cards. The fact that a “small strike” occurred following a high-profile call for peace and a “ceasefire” speaks to the nature of the conflict and the lack of any real intention of a long-term resolution. All of this serves to reinforce the impression that this is just another phase in a long-running conflict.